Whether wolves ever get to howl again in Rocky Mountain National Park, or the Olympic peninsula, or the High Sierras of California should not be left entirely up to the interest of particular states. The Endangered Species Act was enacted to protect

Monday July 29, 2013, 11:18 am
“There seems to be a tacit assumption that if grizzlies survive in Canada and Alaska, that is good enough. It is not good enough for me…. Relegating grizzlies to Alaska is about like relegating happiness to heaven; one may never get there.”
— A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There

When famed conservationist Aldo Leopold wrote these words in 1948, he might as well have been talking about the gray wolf today. Just as it was imperative to restore grizzly bears to the lower 48 states, we have also worked diligently to restore wolves to their rightful place on the landscape

But the Obama Administration is now proposing to strip Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection for most gray wolves in the lower 48 states, even though there are huge areas of suitable wolf habitat in the west with no wolves at all. That’s not good enough for us. You might get the chance to travel to Idaho or Minnesota to see a wolf, but many people may never get there. And if you live in prime unoccupied wolf habitat in Colorado or Northern California or Utah, you shouldn’t have to go elsewhere to see wolves.

The return of the wolf in the Northern Rockies and the Great Lakes is an incredible success story marred only by the insistence of the Northern Rockies states on aggressive wolf management. But now, on the basis of just these two populations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says its recovery work is done and wants to delist gray wolves everywhere except for the Southwest.

The ESA sets higher recovery standards than that, and we should not permit the Obama Administration to walk away from recovery of wolves with the job half finished. Rather, we will fight tooth and claw to see that this latest plan to shortchange wolf recovery does not succeed. Not just for the sake of wolves, but all species protected under the ESA.

The very premise of the ESA is that “various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation” and that “these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people” (16 U.S.C. § 1531). The Act requires that species be listed when threatened with extinction in “all or a significant portion” of their range. Species are only to be delisted when, among other things, the original threats to their survival are eliminated and the affected states have adopted adequate safeguards to ensure their continued conservation.

The ESA does not support a selective “museum piece” approach to conservation. Indeed, the framers’ intent was very clearly to restore threatened and endangered species throughout suitable habitat in their historic range—not just in a few isolated pockets.

Many scientists strongly agree that gray wolves have not been recovered throughout a significant portion of their historic range. Last month in anticipation of the Service’s proposal, 16 of the nation’s leading scientists with experience in wolf biology wrote to the Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe to protest wolf delisting. In their words:

“The gray wolf has barely begun to recover or is absent from significant portions of its former range where substantial suitable habitat remains. The Service’s draft rule fails to consider science identifying extensive suitable habitat in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains and the Northeast. It also fails to consider the importance of these areas to the long-term survival and recovery of wolves, or the importance of wolves to the ecosystems of these regions.”

Defenders’ policy and legal experts are preparing detailed comments opposing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s gray wolf delisting proposal. The Fish and Wildlife Service is currently taking public comments for 90-days, so you too can weigh in. And if the Obama administration approves this scientifically-flawed and legally deficient proposal, we’ll be back in court once more.

Whether wolves ever get to howl again in Rocky Mountain National Park, or the Olympic peninsula, or the High Sierras of California should not be left entirely up to the interest of particular states. The Endangered Species Act was enacted to protect wildlife in our national interest.

Get involved in the fight against this reckless delisting proposal! Click here to learn how to submit comments, reach out to your elected officials, and more.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

This post was written by: Jason Rylander

Jason Rylander is a Senior Staff Attorney for Defenders of Wildlife. Jason litigates cases across the country involving endangered species and habitat protection. His cases have involved gray wolves, grizzly bears, piping plovers, pygmy owls, red knots, and other imperiled species.

Tell FWS What You Think!
http://www.defenders.org/national-wolf-emergency/lower-48-wolf-delisting-comments

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required by law to accept public comments before they can make their final decision on this misguided proposal. Defenders plans to use this 90 day comment period to organize strong and vocal opposition from supporters like you to make sure the decision makers in Washington hear what America thinks about the premature delisting of gray wolves.

Submit your comment today and tell the FWS that you strongly oppose their misguided proposal to delist nearly all wolves.

Here are some important points you could include in your comments:
•
Gray wolf recovery is not complete. This decision could derail wolf recovery efforts in areas around the country where it has barely begun — in places like the Pacific Northwest and in states that possess some of the nation's best unoccupied wolf habitat, such as northern California, Colorado, and Utah.

•
Delisting would prematurely turn wolf management over to the states. We've already seen what can happen when rabid anti-wolf politics are allowed to trump science and core wildlife management principles.

•
Montana, Wyoming and Idaho — where wolves have already been delisted — are not managing wolves like other wildlife such as elk, deer, and bears. Instead they're intending to drive the wolves' population numbers back down to the bottom.

•
Other species, such as the bald eagle, American alligator and peregrine falcon, were declared recovered and delisted when they occupied a much larger portion of their former range. Wolves deserve the same chance at real recovery.

This comment period is a chance for you to make your voice heard!
Submit your comments and encourage all those you know to do the same.

If you prefer to submit your comments in hardcopy, send them by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to:

Help spread the word about why this delisting proposal is a conservation tragedy! Here are some ways you can make your voice heard!

Reach out to Decision Makers

In addition to signing petitions (click here for a current list), you can reach out directly to elected officials and let them know what you think of this delisting proposal and why it shouldn’t be allowed to move forward. Don’t be afraid to call, write, email, tweet, post or even request a meeting in person.

You can also reach out to your other elected officials – the more people in power who can speak out against the delisting, the better.

Contact your Senator

Contact your Congressman

Tap into Social Media

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs and other interactive online outlets are quick and efficient ways to communicate and share information and views.

Spread the word on wolf recovery and other important wildlife conservation efforts by sharing Defenders’ emails, blogs, tweets and Facebook posts on your own blogs and social media accounts so that the topic can reach an even wider audience.

You can also take advantage of the option to post comments to newspaper articles and other items you read online. These comments are gaining visibility and attention—particularly among lawmakers on Capitol Hill interested in seeing what their constituents have to say on a subject.

Write a Letter to the Editor

Letters to the editor are great advocacy tools. They reach a large audience, including elected officials. They can bring up information not addressed in a news article and illustrate more widespread support for or against an issue. Here are some tips to help ensure success in getting your letter published:
•
Know the newspaper’s policy. Call the newspaper or check its website for its requirements for printing letters from readers. Some newspapers have strict word-count limits; others only accept letters from people who live in the community. Many newspapers even have forms on their websites for submitting letters.

•
Focus on the message. As you write, always keep in mind what you want the reader to come away with after reading your letter. Don’t make the editor wonder what you’re trying to say.

•
Be concise. Keep your letter brief (150 to 200 words) and limited to one topic. If your letter is too long or complicated, it may be edited or discounted altogether. You can be direct, engaging and even controversial, but never defamatory or obscene—no matter how provoked you are.

•
Refer to specific articles in the paper. While some papers print general commentary, your chances of getting printed increase if your letter refers to a specific article. However, don’t do a lengthy rehash of the article, simply refer to it briefly.

•
Be timely. When responding to an article, submit your letter to the editor as soon as possible. You want the original article to be fresh in the mind of the audience.

•
Get personal. The best letters contain attention-getting information or personal anecdotes. Refer to personal stories to make your point. Use personal examples whenever you can.

•
Include your contact information. Many newspapers will print a letter only after verifying the identity and address of the author. Provide your full name, address, ZIP code and daytime telephone number so the newspaper can easily contact you to verify your letter or to discuss editorial changes prior to publication.

•
Don’t give up. Most publications are very selective. The smaller the newspaper’s circulation, the better your chances of getting your letter printed. Don’t keep calling to check on the status of your letter. If your letter isn’t selected, don’t be discouraged. You can send a revised letter with a different angle at another time. Be aware, too, that many publications have guidelines about repeatedly printing letters from a single individual, so don’t expect to have your letters printed on a regular basis.

•
Share your success. If your letter is published, don’t stop there. Send the clip to your elected officials so they see what their constituents are writing and reading about. Don’t forget to send a copy to Defenders of Wildlife, too. It’s your voice that helps us succeed in our work and we want to hear it.

A just-released study by William Ripple et al. of OSU and WSU has discovered that the berries of North America can return, if the Wolf can return:
Short article on LA Times on this
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-76809496/

I have posted some info elsewhere about the actually TINY wolf populatinos in the lower 48 states - those with any wolves at all.
By 2012 only 1674 wolves existed in huge Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming mountain areas.
hunters killed 570 that year ALONE
another 231 were murdered because they took a few sheep of welfare ranchers using YOUR land for profit at a loss to taxpayers.

Time to end the hunting, time to end the killing of wolves for profit.